Sorry about the previous short answer.

You've wandered a significant distance from the original problem. The whole argument you give above is irrelevant. You switched to arguing that the federal government shouldn't be able to create any laws regarding employment. You can replace contraception with minimum wage and your argument is unchanged. You've moved it from a First Amendment Issue to a States' Rights/Federal Powers Issue and thus you are completely off topic.

Additionally the religious text you provide is irrelevant as the country in question is not a theocracy.

If you'd like to address the original issue, specifically why you feel a church has the right to force it's view point on non members, I'd be happy to answer. However if you continue to change the subject I won't bother.

Your premise is invalid. The view that's it's OK to pay for contraception is not protected. The view to not use contraception is protected.

Your argument is that since the murder church believes murdering random people is a religious belief they are free to ignore the law against murder.

<quote> ... no one holds a gun to your head and force you to work for a catholic.</quote>

I thought of a shorter argument.

Why is the burden on the employee? If Catholics don't want to follow employment law then they shouldn't start businesses. No one is holding a gun to their head.

First off your description of the situation is incorrect. The government is forcing no views on Catholics. Before this Catholics were free to not use contraception. After this Catholics are still free to not use contraception. What view is being forced on them?

Choosing to do something yourself based on your religious beliefs is religious freedom. Forcing someone else to do something based on your religious beliefs is religious oppression.

The classic example is: Your freedom to swing your arms ends at someone's face. According to you it's the person who get's hit fault for being in the way. I mean they have the choice of not standing there right?

You're saying that if random murder is a religious belief of the murder church then it's a constitutional violation if you prevent members of the murder church from murdering. Yes this is an extreme example but that is on purpose. If one's beliefs are forced on others how do you regulate it? You've forced a situation where the state has to then either sanction churches, sanction specific dogma of the churches, or permit literally any action under the logic that it is a religious belief. That's the complete opposite of separation of church and state.

I haven't stated my views. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I guess you didn't understand our posts then. I'm not contesting his position I'm reinforcing it.

Dead Rising 1&2 (from Capcom) are prime examples of Japanese designers taking things off the rail. It's mechanics driven and the story is completely dependent on what you choose to do, including multiple endings.

Also it's from an old school Japanese developer, he created Megaman.

You just proved your opponents point.

You're admitting the validity of the poll.

You're saying America is now in favor of gay marriage, which it didn't used to be in the past.

That was easy. :)

The fake residency is the only thing I was addressing.

I don't know enough about the school thing to respond to that point.

It's one more poll than you've shown.